Opportunities for Interventions That Address Socioeconomic Barriers to Type 2 Diabetes Management: Patient Perspectives

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the study was to explore patient perspectives on socioeconomic barriers related to diabetes self-management and interventions to address these barriers. Methods Focus groups (n = 8) were conducted with a diverse sample of adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D; n = 53). Researchers used a semistructured moderator guide; focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Researchers employed the constant comparison method for qualitative content analysis and utilized Atlas.ti (Version 8.1.1) to digitalize the analytic process. Results Findings revealed 3 primary themes: (1) Existing food and nutrition resources are insufficient to support healthy eating for diabetes; (2) healthy eating is critical for diabetes management, but socioeconomic circumstances make doing so challenging; and (3) participants supported several broad categories of preferred intervention strategies. First, they endorsed lifestyle intervention informed by socioeconomic status (SES; eg, focusing on food resource management, sensitive health coaching and nutritional counseling). Next, they expressed enthusiasm for group-based learning opportunities, such as cooking classes and support groups with similar SES peers. Finally, they suggested healthy food access resources. Conclusions Participant suggestions should be incorporated into intervention development. Ultimately, these interventional strategies should be tested and refined to help improve health for individuals with type 2 diabetes.

Barriers and facilitators of self‐management of diabetes amongst people experiencing socioeconomic deprivation: A systematic review and qualitative synthesis

“…The CASP tool highlighted that several studies lacked detail about whether the relationship between researcher and participants had been adequately considered. 30 , 42 , 47 The quality assessment highlighted some issues due to insufficient information, resulting in a ‘can't tell’ score which was the case for two studies in relation to the data analysis process. 30 , 32 One paper 32 scored ‘No’ for the question relating to a clear statement of findings.…”